Webconverger is 10+ year old self-updating distribution (Debian derivative) with 4000+ deployments which is designed to be used in public / corporate / locked down environments, giving sane access to the open Web. It's opensource, though it just about sustains itself with a business side where it charges for a configuration management service.

Hopefully I can work out how to disable these things. Otherwise just wanted to say "Hi" and voice my intention to explore using Pale Moon instead of Firefox. If this a bad or good idea, would be nice to know.

If you intend to ship Pale Moon with a distribution like that with pre-installed add-ons and/or different configuration, be aware that you can't "just do so". If you want to do this, then we must agree to the terms of officially-branded binary distribution with your intended configuration. Please see: http://www.palemoon.org/redist.shtml

Feel free to get in touch via e-mail to work this out.

Improving Mozilla code: You know you're on the right track with code changes when you spend the majority of your time deleting code.

"If you want to build a better world for yourself, you have to be willing to build one for everybody." -- Coyote Osborne

Ah well. I always find it a pity when I see forum rules (or any rules at all) are used in a somewhat "ultra-conservative" way.

I fully understand the need for rules, I have had experience with forums for many years (almost 2 decades) and I know how wrong discussions can go.

Yet when compared to the simple act of responding to a thread which brings a topic your are interested in (whether or not it is "likely relevant" does not seem relevant here), I feel reproaching someone who responded twice to such threads of interest "you are always necro-bumping, please don't to this" rather repressive and not at all encouraging when it comes to debate and exchange of ideas.

I have seen too much of this, and more (such as deletion of whole threads because someone didn't like something someone said in a post and complained about it to some moderator) to not feel somewhat aggravated by this.

Understand: this is simply about a rule not allowing you to respond to a topic which clearly, obviously IS relevant to you and in which you are interested. And solely because the thread has not been active for some it is considered to be "dead" and your respondig to it "necro-bumping"? This is completely arbitrary and in my view is not based on any actually rational consideration. What's there to say against pursuing a conversation after everyone has become silent? Who is to decide it is "dead"?

I think as soon as anyone is taking it up again, this fact alone demonstrates the conversation is not "dead" at all. The central idea or topic of ths thread probably has still potential for discussion for ages, the one thing missing is interested participants, and I think it is a shame to not allow any such interested participant to activate it again.

Such a topic simply STAYS interesting and relevant, whether or not someone calls it "dead".

Warning issued. Please don't continue this trend, and mind your rebuttals that feel very much like personal attacks on someone's behavior while all they are doing is seeing a trend and calling you out on it.

Also, locking this thread manually now. It's been well and truly concluded in April already.

Improving Mozilla code: You know you're on the right track with code changes when you spend the majority of your time deleting code.

"If you want to build a better world for yourself, you have to be willing to build one for everybody." -- Coyote Osborne